Relating Works to Justification

My friend Bill Evans has responded to my earlier post
concerning the "efficacy" of good works, and I am grateful for the clarity that
he contributes. In responding to Evans,
I hope to clarify what I wrote and perhaps move us a step closer to agreement
on how we should speak about the necessity of good works in salvation. As I write, I am aware of a pending response
from Mark Jones, to which I eagerly look forward. My purpose in writing now is not to preempt
Mark but rather to capture some of the issues brought up by Evans.

There are some who might look upon this discussion as
in-fighting among the "sanctification" crowd.
I would disagree, however. It is
not enough for us to join in criticizing what we see as antinomian tendencies
on the one side. We must also make clear
what we mean by what we are saying, in this case by the necessity and/or
efficacy of good works in salvation.

First, Evans raised a couple of questions about what I had
written that I gladly clarify. He cites
me as saying that we must "pointedly separate [the necessity of good works]
from justification," and thus concludes that I am willing to speak of the
necessity of works only as they pertain to sanctification. I understand how Evans draws this conclusion,
so let me respond that this was not my intent.
What I meant was that good works must be isolated from the instrumentality of justification, not
from justification in an absolute sense.
I would fully agree, for instance, in works as necessary evidence of
saving faith and thus of justification, in a James 2 manner.

Second, in complete agreement with Bill's emphasis on union
with Christ and the duplex gratia, I would enthusiastically agree that through
union with Christ faith and works are not isolated but are joined (even while
they remain distinct). Far from being "separate,"
through union with Christ, faith and works are inseparable though
distinct. So I agree with this and
clarify that I was referring to works being excluded from the instrumentality
of justification. I would like to think
through some of Evans' arguments regarding the role of works in passages like 1
Cor. 6:9-11 and Gal. 5:19-21. But, in
general, I would greatly commend his summary of Vos and Gaffin with respect to
the dynamic nature of justification and the organic relationship of faith and
works through union with Christ. Those
desiring to think deeply about these matters can hardly do better than to plumb
the material that Evans presents. Two
good starting places would be Vos' "The Pauline Eschatology" and Gaffin's "By
Faith Not By Sight."

With real appreciation for and agreement in Evans' piece, I
would still, however, plead against the expression "efficacy of works unto
salvation." It is true, properly circumscribed
and exposited. But the word "efficacy"
is a strong one, as the doctrine of "effectual calling" makes clear. Effectual calling refers to the mighty call
of Christ that effects or achieves regeneration. When we speak of works as "efficacious" or "effectual"
we are saying that they effect or achieve something. The word "salvation" simply is not precise
enough accurately to describe what this is.
Nor should we expect general readers to assume the context of our
rarified Vosian explanations, compelling and rich though they are. Evans accurately expresses my whole intent
when he states that we must not only recognize the necessity of works but do so
"in a sense that must be carefully defined and circumscribed." In full agreement with this aim, I would
assert that "efficacy of works unto salvation" generates more heat than light and
would be better avoided in our efforts to combat antinomianism.

We exist to call the Church, amidst a dying culture, to repent of its worldliness, to recover and confess the truth of God’s Word as did the reformers, and to see that truth embodied in doctrine, worship, and life.